That is is imply not true
A JP firing at Churchill at max range will needs on average 63.5 sec to kill it.

A FF firing at a Tiger at max range will needs on average 58.7 sec to kill it without even using Tulips.

Note here that the price ratio greatly favors the FF.

(calculation are made using DPS by adjusting damage and taking into account accuracy and penetration)

I did three tests with pershing vs JP at 50, 55 and 60 range. and tiger vs FF, JP came out on top every time.

JP vs Churchill died first 2/3 times, I know these are token tests but if the JP couldn't fight with heavies then it wouldn't even be competeing with FF here. Of course SU-85 is different when it has no defensive vet like the JP and loses in a 1vs1 vs JP.

According to vippers own definition in old threads calling for churchill nerfs the Churchill is a "heavy" and so is the tiger.

It also has much more health then tiger, so we can easily compare them despite lower armor, it averages out to be the same survivability, except against one you need high pen and against the other, lots of shells in short time.

That is is imply not true
A JP firing at Churchill at max range will needs on average 63.5 sec to kill it.

A FF firing at a Tiger at max range will needs on average 58.7 sec to kill it without even using Tulips.

Note here that the price ratio greatly favors the FF.

(calculation are made using DPS by adjusting damage and taking into account accuracy and penetration)

You always mention tulips in these tests as if they're a garenteed addition to DPS, but they're not as it's a skill shot.

I could also mention JP camo and even HEAT rounds that turn it into argubaly the best cost effective TD against all armor in the game. But I don't because they're not a sure thing in every engagement lile core DPS stats.

Unfortunetly for you and imperial dane actually the JP is pretty darn good, it's just so many OKW players get a horn for panthers, command tigers or KT. So JP gets sidelinded when one parked at the back can more than carry its weight against heavies. (especially vs jacksons too which it handily beats 1vs1)

According to vippers own definition in old threads calling for churchill nerfs the Churchill is a "heavy" and so is the tiger.

Cool story bro, if it were a heavy it would be limited to 1 and it would exclude all other heavies from being called in. The Command Panther is classified as a heavy, for example, by relic. The KV 1 and Churchill is not, and if those were suddenly classified heavies, they would be getting nerfs, and not buffs.

Cool story bro, if it were a heavy it would be limited to 1 and it would exclude all other heavies from being called in. The Command Panther is classified as a heavy, for example, by relic. The KV 1 and Churchill is not, and if those were suddenly classified heavies, they would be getting nerfs, and not buffs.

Been a heavy doesn't mean it would put a limit to the amount of units you can build. The Cmd PV is limited to one due to been a Cmd unit.

Weight classification only matters in order to put certain units in different categories although their performance may vary.

It also doesn't matters what Relic calls it IMO (what's consistency), as like with language, if 90% of the people refer to something in a certain way, it's better for understanding to use the more common term.

Ex:
(This was written by someone no longer working on Relic)

Super Heavy Call in Vehicles (Tiger, Tiger Ace, Elefant, IS2, ISU, Jadgtiger, Sturmtiger, KV2)
Limited to having only 1 on the field

My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.

In order to get back to the main topic and also to weigh in to the discussion with more numbers:

While I haven't been able to generate any statistically meaningful in-game data yet (obviously), I've run some theoretical simulations to estimate how the incoming changes to the AOE profiles impact the anti infantry performance of the affected heavy tanks (details on the methodology can be found here).

The comparison is based on the number of shots (S2K) and required time (T2K) to kill a full-health, 6-man squad in either "wide", "stacked" or "clumped" formation (Fig 1) at ranges 5, 20 and 40 m.

Fig 1: Formations used in the simulation, numbers below each image indicate average (AV), minimum (Min) and maximum (Max) distance between entities

The resulting average numbers for S2K (Fig 2) and T2K (Fig 3) over 5,000 iterations for the live and WBP-versions of the Tiger, IS-2 and Pershing, as well as the King Tiger and KV-2 for reference can be seen below.

Fig 2: Shots required to kill a full-health, 6-man squad.

Fig 2: Time required to kill a full-health, 6-man squad.

Expectedly, the S2K or T2K values show significant dependence on the squad spacing and range. However, and more important for the actual discussion, you can clearly see that the effect of the AOE changes on the overall anti-inf performance of the Tiger (as well as IS-2 and M26) is rather limited, and the tanks will be nowhere near as "neutered" by these changes as people suggest.
The actual magnitude (see Table 1) is in the range of only 5-10%, and both Pershing and IS-2 seem to be impacted more by the WBP than the Tiger, in particular for more "clumped-up" formations.

Thx for crunching the numbers. Could you also do the calculations for the time to kill a 4 man squad for the allied tanks?

Though I haven't had the time to do it for all allied tanks yet, this comparison for the IS-2 should outline the general trend at least...

Fig 1: Comparison of number of shots required to kill a full-health 6 or 4-man squad for different distances and squad formations

As you can see, while the required number of shots to kill the 4-man squad is noticeably smaller - as one would naturally expect - the actual difference is less than 10% in most cases. This should not be too surprising, since entities in a squad often receive non-lethal damage from near-misses or direct hits to adjacent models.
Of course a lot comes down to squad formations and spacing between models, which is why it can be quite difficult to compare results between 4 and 6-men formations. As a result, the difference between 4 and 6-man squad are relatively small for the wide formation, where removing the entities encircled in red (Fig 2) did not change the average spacing of the squad members too much. In case of the stacked formation, the resulting 4-man squad is much more clumped than the 6-man analog and the difference in the S2K value is much greater (~20-25%).